Customer Discussions > Health forum

MONSANTO


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 10:55:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2011 10:55:35 AM PDT
Your "representative" is probably in their pocket. Every corporate wrong-doing doesn't have to end like some comic book-esque domination of policy and influence on the world. Simply don't buy their products. Nobody can force you to.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:10:36 AM PDT
Oregongirl says:
About 90% of our soybeans are owned by Monsanto. They basically own the soybean. And soybeans are in so many foods. Including commercially produced breads, peanutbutter, cereals. crackers, baby forumulas, frozen foods, meats... So avoidance would be hard.

That would be a great weight loss plan though. Avoiding Monsanto soybeans would slim America up quick, lol.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:17:51 AM PDT
Susanna says:
" Simply don't buy their products."

Not possible.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:20:26 AM PDT
Monsanto's soybean patent expires in a few years, plus their under anti-trust scrutiny so it's not all doom and gloom.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:24:16 AM PDT
You can certainly cut down on many of their products. Soy allergy is a common food allergy. These people do it somehow.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:32:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2011 11:33:25 AM PDT
No one in my area currently grows bread, pizza, baby formula, coffee creamer, peanut butter, graham crackers, cheeses. And even if they did they would have to use heirloom seeds. Not Monsanto seeds. I have to buy my heirloom seeds online now.

Start reading the back of the packages of the foods you eat.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:34:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2011 11:40:48 AM PDT
"Start reading the back of the packages of the foods you eat."

Yes...and buy the one's supplied by DuPont.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:36:10 AM PDT
"Not possible."

Actually, it's very easy. Don't buy prepared foods. :P

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:54:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2011 1:02:08 PM PDT
Oregongirl says:
I think it's very easy to say that. Harder to actually do it. However you're right in that the consumer made Monsanto the big bad wolf. And the consumer still has the ability to make the big bad wolf less of a problem.

It's difficult to purchase organic foods on government foodstamps however. Or avoid the food if one is eating USDA approved school, prison, hospital etc cafeteria food.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 11:57:52 AM PDT
Damn you Oregongirl and your logical replies!!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 12:39:35 PM PDT
Or milk products or meat or eggs because most livestock is fed with Monsanto gmos. Don't buy seitan or tofu or canned beans unless certified no gmos...even then, it's usually Monsanto.

It's most certainly NOT easy: I have tried to avoid Monsanto/ConAgra for many years. I'm lucky enough to have the time to cook and bake for my family. Where we live now, there is no food co-op or boutique grocer or bakery where non GMO certified food can be found. I grow and buy from local farmers and order what I can online. Going out to dinner? forget about it.
Believe me, it's not easy.
Well, perhaps it is for those who live in big cities with lots of $$$$....

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 2:23:02 PM PDT
Oregongirl says:
haha!! Webster you rock.

Posted on Oct 11, 2011 3:10:40 PM PDT
The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

Pest resistance: Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market.

Herbicide tolerance: For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7.
Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases.

Cold tolerance: Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.)

Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance: As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places.

Nutrition: Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all.

Pharmaceuticals: Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.

Phytoremediation: Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil.

(http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php)

Posted on Oct 11, 2011 3:20:42 PM PDT
Monsanto spends a lot of time and money developing varieties ensuring all of these benefits. Should they not be paid for their work? 95% of farmers consider Monsanto a key contributor to the success and growth of their business. The other 5% are angry because they want to use and or propagate Monsanto's seed without paying them for it. If you buy an artist's latest music album should you be able to mass produce and sell it without the consent of the musician? When Monsanto creates new varieties of food that can be produced with higher yields and at lower cost it benefits ALL of us.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 3:47:06 PM PDT
Matthew says:
Ummm... What happened to the part where you can no longer produce your own seed once Monsanto's seed has been found on your land, whether you like it or not. How is that beneficial?

And what about the genetic disorders that will be caused by splicing the DNA of food genes with those of infectious bacteria? How does that benefit us all?

Just because you find positives in the situation does not mean there are not a host of outstanding negatives.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 3:51:30 PM PDT
Matthew says:
And btw, an artist's latest album does not get blown off a passing truck and into my cd player, thereby forcing me to listen to no other artists music but theirs and then force me to pay through the nose for it.

If Monsanto were a singer/songwriter that is what they would be doing...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 4:43:08 PM PDT
Susanna says:
" I have to buy my heirloom seeds online now.:"

Buy them and store them...Monsanto has already purchased some of those companies.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 4:46:02 PM PDT
Susanna says:
" 95% of farmers consider Monsanto a key contributor to the success and growth of their business"

Is that from your previous source?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 4:46:16 PM PDT
Susanna says:
Precisely!

Posted on Oct 11, 2011 5:01:11 PM PDT
Georgina says:
I have no problem with big business. It CAN be the most efficient way to produce what we need and use less resources to do so. Those who want to go back to a hunter/gather or farmer society - yes it's possible but you will minimally have to choose which 2 BILLION people you want to kill off. However, Monsanto is all together in a different category.

They have discovered that doing bad business is cheaper than good business. They have dumped millions of gallons of pesticides in water ways and I'm talking towns with cancer/tumor rates of 70%+ because of them. They pay fines and families off and it's cheaper for them.

Secondly, I have a big problem with the patenting of genes. This (Monsanto's soy bean gene) paved the way for a medical company to patent a breast cancer gene. They owned a specific breast cancer gene stopping any research by anyother company to work with a specific type of breast cancer. As a daughter who just lost her mother to breast cancer, it hits home. Luckily, this human gene patenting has been overturned but Monsanto's patent on genes has not. (Maybe they'll learn to control the winds so that their genes don't go other places.)

In short...Monsanto has reaped royalties off the backs of farmers who just get by and they have caused significant harm (death, cancer, tumors) to many families...if you want that in your water or have your farm affect, then support them but it's so easy to forget what's happening in others' backyards.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2011 9:57:52 PM PDT
Yes, Monsanto certainly does have the political influence and as we all know, the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same free speech rights as actual individuals, who are certainly not as wealthy as corporations. Monsanto is BAD NEWS.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2011 8:56:40 AM PDT
I don't think you can eat something and get a genetic disorder. Plus we have thousands of non-pathogenic species of bacteria in us.

As for the patent, to be fair, if a company puts a billion + into research, is it really fair some other person can just walk up and steal it and use it for their own profit without paying for it? That's what patents are for - to recoup that cost. But it's made fair by mandatory expiration of that patent so others can eventually produce it as well.

I am in no way defending anything dastardly Monsanto does, but people do need to understand things instead of using them as springboards for blanket complaints.

Posted on Oct 12, 2011 8:50:15 PM PDT
Georgina says:
People aren't stealing their products and using it in other fields. There crops are planted near other fields, and their crops are cross pollinating. Therefore, Monsanto goes around saying hey you've got our product now pay us. So if I make something, patented it, throw it in my neighbors yard without their consent, I can sue them and get money from them in court.

Monsanto has patents on products' such as the seeds they sell to farmers however, they don't own the yield or patent on those seeds. So if a seed travels via winds to another field, that farmer should not be obligated to pay anything to Monsanto because it doesn't control yield. If a farmer planted their seeds, had a horrible yield due to any number of reasons, I doubt they'll compensate. If patenting seeds is okay in our society then they should also subsidize and compensate farmers based on yields.

Posted on Oct 12, 2011 9:00:47 PM PDT
Georgina says:
"I don't think you can eat something and get a genetic disorder."

Yeah, unfortunately this isn't always true. Let's feed cows to cows...oh that led to mad cow disease. Now, using human DNA strands in gelatin because it makes better gelatin.

I have no problem with research & development but no Monsanto hasn't spent "billions" on any single item. The average pharmecutical drug cost $300-$500 million. They are working with seeds and pesticides - not quite as costly as hoops drug companies have to go through.

Maybe it is okay but to not at least allow for sometime to observe affects is failure. Now there's GMO fish - quick start selling it and we don't even have to tell people its GMO. Smoking used to be good for you in this country. It took a little time to realize this wasn't the case. Just let food be food without constantly trying to eek pennies more out of a bushell of apples.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2011 10:07:18 PM PDT
"People aren't stealing their products and using it in other fields. There crops are planted near other fields, and their crops are cross pollinating."

I'm not finding this is a common occurrence. And even in articles I do find like this one (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm), the Supreme Courts tend to rule on the side of the private farmer as they cannot control that. Even Monsanto itself says GM crops are NOT supposed to cross pollinate (http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/genetically-modified-plants.html). I understood that was a part of the reason to modify them - to make them sterile so you had to buy seeds for each generation rather than use the offspring seeds.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  170
Total posts:  7068
Initial post:  Sep 23, 2010
Latest post:  4 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 19 customers

Search Customer Discussions